Quality of red blood cells washed using the <scp>ACP</scp> 215 cell processor: assessment of optimal pre‐ and postwash storage times and conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Washing of red blood cell concentrates (RCCs) is required for potassium-sensitive transfusion recipients, including neonates in need of large-volume transfusions. When open, nonsterile washing systems are used, postwash outdate time is limited to 24 hours, often leading to problems providing the component to the patient before expiry. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A closed, automated cell processor, the ACP 215 from Haemonetics Corporation, was used to wash RCCs and determine optimal pre- and postwash storage times. Two postwash storage solutions, additive solution (AS)-3 and saline-adenine-glucose-mannitol (SAGM), were compared. The in vitro quality of leukoreduced RCCs, prepared from citrate-phosphate-dextrose-anticoagulated whole blood, was determined postwash and compared to existing guidelines for RCC quality (hemoglobin content, hematocrit, and hemolysis) and predetermined criteria for ATP and supernatant potassium levels. A criterion for visual hemolysis was also applied. RESULTS: The prewash storage time, postwash storage time, and the postwash resuspension solution all contributed to RCC quality postwash. Levels of hemolysis were greater when washed RCCs were resuspended in SAGM (p = 0.01), while AS-3 proved worse at maintaining ATP levels postwash (p < 0.01). Immediately postwash, all units had supernatant K+ levels below the detection limit of the instrument (<1 mmol/L), but these increased to above acceptable levels within 14 days. CONCLUSION: Based on all acceptance criteria, a maximum 14-day prewash storage period and 7-day postwash storage period in SAGM preservative was found to be optimal. The longer outdate time postwashing should help lessen challenges in providing components to patients before expiry.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".